While it would be nice to see a world where people lived close enough to their worksites where a significant portion of the populatation could walk or bike to their worksites, most households require two incomes to support a family. Living near where one works is not a reality in a two-income world. The so-called “walkable, live-work” environments of San Francisco, Portland and Vancouver BC have driven up the cost of real estate (current recession situation nothwithstanding) to the point where the middle class must move 50-75 miles from the urban centers to afford decent, middle class housing.

A future based on bicycles and walkability sounds nice. Unfortunately, it is a 19th century solution to the 21st century problem of two-income families(in my opinion anyway). I think the Capital Southeast Connector can resolve a lot of those problems, if it is planned and bulit correctly. Areas will be developed for walkability, while the corridor will (or should) be developed for inter-regional mobility.

Yes, clearly the Sacramento region needs to develop a bypass for its downtown area. And, yes, the project needs to be mindful of the environment. So it strikes me as odd that for the sake of expediency the Capital SouthEast Connector working group would select the most environmentally sensitive location to construct its roadway.

The Sheldon region of the project is quite problematic. It is an environmentally fragile area. There are wetlands which foster animal and plant habitat. It is also a floodplain. Furthermore, Sheldon has a quiet, rural neighborhood ambiance that would be completely destroyed if such a connector were constructed. The community is already agitated about the Elk Grove City Council’s attempts to annex the area and the debacle that is the unfinished mall. If residents knew (or realized) that the connector would literally tear the community in half, they would probably fight it with gusto.

The comments by the previous poster are also interesting with regard to the way in which the connector is envisioned. Please consider the impact of drawing thousands of motor vehicles through this area. Yes, many will use the connector for its stated purpose: for long trips to connect 5 and 99 to 50. But many others will use it for much shorter trips. Are the adjacent roadways prepared to carry the vehicle capacity such traffic would require? Sheldon Road is a two lane country road, as is Excelsior, Bradshaw and much of Calvine. Would the connector project include widening those roads and placing traffic lights (or better yet, round abouts to keep traffic flowing) on those streets?

I ask these questions not as a resident of Sheldon. I am not. My address is in Laguna. Rather I ask these questions as a concerned citizen of the Elk Grove community who has been in the past and continues to be in the present dismayed at the short sighted decisions made by this community’s leaders.

As we move closer toward the second decade of the 21st century, we need to be mindful that 20th century plans may not work so well anymore. In simple terms, the world is changing. What used to be the norm in American society will soon be extinct. Perhaps the connector planning group could consult transportation planners who emphasize bicycles and trains more than cars. It’s usually a good idea to get voices that challenge rather than assuage one’s comfort level. A transportation link such as this one can be a marvel for the region, or it can be a debacle like the mall it will pass by. The variety of voices this body hears will determine, in large part, the connector’s success.

Yes, this is an interesting and challenging project. I look forward to watching its progress. I also look forward to seeing how the planning group, yourself included, allow and embrace different voices as it moves forward.